Sumner v. Jim Lupient Infiniti, 061919 MNWC, WC19-6242

Case DateJune 19, 2019
CourtMinnesota
YER SUMNER, Employee/Appellant,
v.
JIM LUPIENT INFINITI and SFM RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Employer-Insurer/Respondents.
No. WC19-6242
Minnesota Workers Compensation
Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals
June 19, 2019
         ATTORNEY FEES - RORAFF FEES. The compensation judge appropriately applied the Irwin factors to reach a reasonable Roraff fee.           B.J. Robichaud, Paul W. Schroepfer, and Samuel H. Dilley, Robichaud, Schroepfer & Correia, P.A., P.S.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellant.           Joshua M. Steinbrecher, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff, Johnson, Lane & Feenstra, PA., St. Paul, Minnesota, for the Respondents.           Determined by: Patricia J. Mlun, Chief Judge, David A. Stofferahn, Judge, Gary M. Hall, Judge.           Compensation Judge: Adam S. Wolkoff          Affirmed.           OPINION           PATRICIA J. MILUN, Chief Judge.          The employee appeals the amount of the compensation judge’s award of Roraff attorney fees. We affirm.          BACKGROUND          On January 28, 2012, Yer Sumner, the employee, was working as an internet sales director of automotive sales for Jim Lupient Infiniti, the employer, which was insured for workers’ compensation liability by SFM Risk Solutions. The employee claimed that she slipped and fell that day while working on the employer’s outdoor premises, striking her head, left elbow, and back. The employee reported the incident to her supervisor and continued working. Later, she sought treatment for pain, dizziness, and confusion. The employee filed a claim petition seeking temporary total disability benefits (TTD) and payment of medical expenses. The employer and insurer denied primary liability. Several providers intervened.          The compensation judge found that the employee had sustained a work injury and was TTD from January 28 through February 11, 2012. The judge also found that the employee had fully recovered from her work injury without the need for work restrictions or further treatment and with no residual disability by May 21, 2012. Holding that none of the intervenors’ rights to reimbursement were otherwise established prior to the hearing, the judge denied all the intervenors’ claims for reimbursement due to their failure to personally attend the hearing.          The employee appealed the compensation judge’s finding that the employee had recovered from her work injury by May 21, 2012; the denial of TTD benefits after February 11, 2012; the failure to determine whether certain medical treatment was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injury; and the denial of reimbursement to intervenors. Two intervenors cross-appealed the denial of their claims for reimbursement. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT